Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

babylonsister

(171,065 posts)
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:39 PM Apr 2012

The debate on women we should be having

The debate on women we should be having
By Ruth Marcus, Published: April 13

snip//


Take, for example, the issue of equal pay. The first legislation that Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which reversed a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it harder for women to bring lawsuits about pay discrimination. (The court said that Ledbetter had waited too long to complain that she had consistently received smaller raises than her male counterparts, even though she hadn’t known of the pay disparity.)

During the 2008 campaign, when he was the one struggling to make inroads with women after a bruising primary battle against Hillary Clinton, Obama used the ruling as a cudgel against Republican nominee John McCain, who said he opposed the bill because it “opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems.”

What is Romney’s view? Asked about it this week, his campaign at first demurred, then issued an unenlightening statement affirming Romney’s dedication to “pay equity.” Well, duh. No modern candidate is going to announce that he — or she — supports unequal pay for equal work. But given that only five Republican senators voted for the Ledbetter law — the four female GOP members and Arlen Specter, who was soon to be an ex-Republican — it’s fair to ask Romney’s view. Pay disparities, and disputes over what, if any, legislative measures should be taken to address them, aren’t disappearing any time soon.

Likewise, what is Romney’s view on the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, which established domestic violence and stalking as federal crimes, and provided funding for services for victims? Republicans in Congress are holding up reauthorization of the measure because of protections it would add for undocumented immigrants and gay men and lesbians. Asked about the issue four years ago, Romney drew a blank. “I’m not familiar with the act,” he said during an “Ask Mitt Anything” forum in New Hampshire. This might be a good time to bone up on it.

Obama has pressed companies to implement flexible workplaces that help working parents juggle job and family. Does Romney consider that an appropriate federal role? Where does he come down on proposals to expand — or contract — the protections of the Clinton-era Family and Medical Leave Act? How would his budget proposals affect already strained federal funding for child care?

And then there is contraception. Romney’s stance on the new mandate for insurance coverage is well known, as is his vow to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. What I’d like to hear from him is why, in an economic proposal that is otherwise sketchy on budgetary details, he specifically endorses eliminating the federal family planning program, which serves low- and middle-income women. Does Romney want to end contraceptive coverage as part of the Medicaid program as well?

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/womens-issues-deserve-a-better-conversation/2012/04/13/gIQALFp7FT_story.html

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The debate on women we should be having (Original Post) babylonsister Apr 2012 OP
You said it, sister. Iris Apr 2012 #1
and we have......crickets Iris Apr 2012 #2
Because politics to them is a game, like a sports game. RC Apr 2012 #3

Iris

(15,657 posts)
1. You said it, sister.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 09:51 PM
Apr 2012

It's what I've been saying all along. And I really, really wish young women in the 20s and 30s (and even 40s) would quit falling into this trap. They need to create new vocabulary about being a mother today. Get rid of the stupid SAHM label. Most mothers are going to be part of the workforce at some time in their child's life.

Iris

(15,657 posts)
2. and we have......crickets
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 10:24 PM
Apr 2012

Why? Why are people so dead set on proving their choices are right rather than try to do something for the greater good?

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
3. Because politics to them is a game, like a sports game.
Sat Apr 14, 2012, 11:38 PM
Apr 2012

Ir matters more who wins and loses, than the will of the people, the wording of the Constitution, MIC, etc. It important to be on the winning team, regardless of the actual outcome for "We the people...".

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The debate on women we sh...